Skip to content

Category: Agriculture

Biofuels and Food Prices

In a new survey article in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, David Zilberman and his coauthors look at the relationship between biofuels and food prices:

[W] e conclude that introduction of biofuel may affect food prices but the impact varies across crops and locations. Furthermore, we found that the introduction of biofuel has a lower impact on food-commodity prices when biofuel production is not competing with food crops for resources, such as land and water. Thus, the expansion of sugarcane ethanol in Brazil and second-generation biofuels grown on nonagricultural lands are likely to have a much smaller impact on food prices than the expansion of corn ethanol. We further argue that the introduction of corn ethanol has had a significant impact on food commodity prices, but it is less substantial than the impact of economic growth and approximately of the same order of magnitude, though in the opposite direction, as the impact of the introduction of GM organisms.

Now, this is based in simulation analysis and economic theory, so it is not possible to make causal claims here.

But this is an interesting set of results in that it suggests that the impact of the growing demand for food due to increased incomes is more important than the impact of biofuels when it comes to food prices.

This is especially interesting when contrasted with the findings in the article I discussed yesterday, which concluded that China’s economic growth since 1995 has only had a weak effect on food prices.

Look Who’s Talking: The Impacts of the Intrahousehold Allocation of Mobile Phones on Agricultural Prices

That’s the title of a new paper by my former student Ken Lee and I, in which we study the impact of mobile phone ownership on the prices received by farmers for their onions in the Philippines.

Here is the abstract:

Using data from the Philippines, we study the impact of mobile phones on the prices agricultural producers receive for their cash crop. We first look at the impact on price of mobile phone ownership at the household level. Because this masks a considerable amount of heterogeneity, we then look at the impact on price of the intrahousehold allocation of mobile phones. We find that whether the household owns a mobile phone has no impact on price, but whether a farmer or his spouse own a mobile phone is associated with a 5- to 7-percent increase in price.

In other words, it’s not whether there is a mobile phone in your household that seems to matter, it’s whether you have a mobile phone yourself (or whether your spouse does, depending on whether we keep outliers or not).

As You Sow, So Shall You Reap: The Welfare Impacts of Contract Farming

My article on contract farming titled “As You Sow, So Shall You Reap: The Welfare Impacts of Contract Farming” is finally out in World Development. Here is the abstract:

Contract farming is widely perceived as a means of increasing welfare in developing countries. Because of smallholder self-selection in contract farming, however, it is not clear whether contract farming actually increases grower welfare. In an effort to improve upon existing estimates of the welfare impacts of contract farming, this paper uses the results of a contingent-valuation experiment to control for unobserved heterogeneity among smallholders. Using data across several regions, firms, and crops in Madagascar, results indicate that a 1-percent increase in the likelihood of participating in contract farming is associated with a 0.5-percent increase in household income, among other positive impacts.

If I had to summarize the paper’s contribution informally, I’d say the estimates it presents of the welfare impacts of contract farming have better internal and external validity than those found in previous studies.

Click here for an ungated, older version (link opens a .pdf document), but note that the results in the ungated version had not undergone peer review, so they are not as solid.